Opinion Time to change the finals structure

[Bunk Moreland]

In any case, the perfect finals system does exist and it cannot be improved upon.

The Top 4.

1st = Home advantage, double chance

2nd = Double chance

3rd = Home advantage

4th = Last finals spot

There is value on every position above the one below it and it’s totally fair.

We spend 22 weeks eliminating 14 teams, then we have the last 4 battle it out over 3 weeks.

If you finish 5th you’re not the best team of the year, you’re not even really close. You don’t get a shot at a premiership.

That’s what the system should be.

The only reason it’s not is to make money, so that’s the way it is. It ain’t changing, fairness isn’t a factor.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Besides it evens up finals a bit. It got a bit boring with the top 4 teams having such an advantage.

Wait what? Can’t tell if this is sarcasm?

23 weeks to determine the top teams who absolutely deserve an advantage isn’t long enough? Heck let’s give everyone a double chance

 

[*Paul*]

So essentially you have two groups using a top 5 system, they each play their own groups in an old top 5 format and then the winners of week 4 play in the GF.

This was used in the initial 20-team NRL season. Canterbury made the grand final from 9th.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

Nothing wrong with how it is now.

 

[demondavey]

This was used in the initial 20-team NRL season. Canterbury made the grand final from 9th.

I rate that. It’s not like the top teams don’t get a good go.

 

[RichLeMonde]

How is one finishing spot more important than winning form and a week break?

I didn’t say it was more important. I just said that it’s clearly unfair for 2 to get an easier game in a knockout prelim than 1, which is what you would expect to happen with the current system.

1 faces 4, and maybe 3
2 faces 3 and maybe 4

They're pretty similar runs, but 1 is marginally better overall due to the chance of 3/4 losing their Semi.

No, I think 2 is marginally better. More important to have the easier game in a knockout final (prelim) than a second chance game (week 1).

Does that actually matter?

How much more of an advantage can you give first? It’s probably the most equitable system. As far as top 8 goes, it’s probably the best format.

Kudo for coming up with a 2 pool system, but I would say you could give 1st a better advantage very simply:

Week 1
1 v 3
2 v 4
(Other matches same as current format)

Then, if higher ranked sides win all their finals, you’d end up with a prelim of:
1 v 4
2 v 3

If my team finished 1st, I’d definitely rather have that format than the current one.

 

[THE EQUALIZER]

Happy with what we have currently, but move both sets of byes back 3 or 4 weeks and that'll keep the majority satisfied.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

They showed data on AFL 360 last night that showed there is a real disadvantage for the top 4 sides having a bye before the finals.

Geelong probably skews that data though considering how terrible they have performed in QF.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Didn't see it, but I can see that it would be less of an advantage getting a top 2/4 spot and securing the bye in week 2 when everyone has already had a break.

Indeed, 2 weeks off in 3 weeks could make the team go a bit cold, so I suppose there is some disadvantage.

Think it only applies to the winners in week 1 though, not all of the top 4.

Didn't seem to be a problem in the old final 5. 1st gets week one off, wins the 2nd Semi and gets another week off before the GF.

 

[Gibbke]

I'm not buying the bye as a finals factor, so to speak...

The week's rest has coincided with a six year period of no one claiming dynasty status since the Hawks era, outside Richmond. The dynasty side still won 3 and should have taken out 2018. The premiers last year were a very powerful unit. No other side comes close to this mark across any of the six seasons, final eights full of filler which notably allowed a spluttering WB team in 2016 to kick up a gear and run through witches hats to take out the flag from 7th...Richmond's failure in 2018 allowed two teams of great mediocrity to stage a mid-table standard classic that gets the plaudits for no other reason than it was the premiership decider...!

Get a few more seasons and a few juggernauts to resume a stranglehold on the comp, and you'll see the inherent advantages of the double chance and home venues kick right back in. There's a reason teams finish in the top 4, and a reason another group end up fighting elimination. I would imagine the Sydney/Hawthorn, Geelong and Brisbane eras, as well as the Collingwood/Saints cameo a decade ago, would all have run the same race with a bye, and the WC v Sydney era, notable for tough and hard defensive footy which ignored home advantages in a number of finals, might have done the same...

Nothing to see here. The only finals system that has an inherent awesomeness in every rationale is the old final five, but that's another debate for another time...

 

[Father Jack]

In any case, the perfect finals system does exist and it cannot be improved upon.

The Top 4.

1st = Home advantage, double chance

2nd = Double chance

3rd = Home advantage

4th = Last finals spot

There is value on every position above the one below it and it’s totally fair.

We spend 22 weeks eliminating 14 teams, then we have the last 4 battle it out over 3 weeks.

If you finish 5th you’re not the best team of the year, you’re not even really close. You don’t get a shot at a premiership.

That’s what the system should be.

The only reason it’s not is to make money, so that’s the way it is. It ain’t changing, fairness isn’t a factor.

Pretty tedious though when half the competition is out of the reckoning by June and have nothing left to play for.

 

[Danw0w]

In any case, the perfect finals system does exist and it cannot be improved upon.

The Top 4.

1st = Home advantage, double chance

2nd = Double chance

3rd = Home advantage

4th = Last finals spot

There is value on every position above the one below it and it’s totally fair.

We spend 22 weeks eliminating 14 teams, then we have the last 4 battle it out over 3 weeks.

If you finish 5th you’re not the best team of the year, you’re not even really close. You don’t get a shot at a premiership.

That’s what the system should be.

The only reason it’s not is to make money, so that’s the way it is. It ain’t changing, fairness isn’t a factor.

I could **** with this, but the only way it could work is if the fixture is perfectly balanced. Otherwise I just don’t think 4 teams is enough when you consider that some teams get easier fixtures than others. The top four isn’t always going to be the best four teams and I feel like 8 teams is the perfect depth to make sure all the deserving teams make it.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Yeah, the punishment for losing in the first week was too severe.

We lost, from 2nd place, in Week 1 of the 1997 finals. Our reward for that? Away to fifth-placed Adelaide, IN ADELAIDE. (Yes, that was the Leigh Colbert Non Mark game).

What about 1991 - 3rd ( Geel ) played 4th (Stk) in the 1st week of the finals - with the loser eliminated

They did crazy stuff in the 90s

If you want to get the bonafide champion team - then GWS and Suns - shouldnt have come in - in non afl states - Melb Storm have been a powerhouse - but theve never contemplated a 2nd team in Vic

So 16 team comp - noo preseason games - that is just a yawn - 30 games - every body plays each twice - home and away - who ever wins the most games - guess what - just like the EPL they are the champion team

Leicester City - when they won the title against all odds - in the back half of the season - when they were under enormous pressure - they just kept nutting out 1-0 wins . That should get fully rewarded - not come the end of the year - and some mob who finish 5th or 6th and have been half asleep for the year - get a free throw at the stumps

 

[BigPond101]

So 16 team comp - noo preseason games - that is just a yawn - 30 games - every body plays each twice - home and away - who ever wins the most games - guess what - just like the EPL they are the champion team

That would be hell on earth in the AFL. In the EPL every position on the ladder means something from relegation up to qualifying for different Europe leagues.

Imagine a 30 week AFL season where one or two teams like Melbourne and Geelong are way out ahead by round 10, and the other 16 teams have another 20 rounds of meaningless matches to go. It would kill the league in 1 season lol

 

[Descent]

in a competition where the fixture can help determine ladder position, it’s only appropriate that we don’t massively favour teams that finish slightly higher than others.

 

[demondavey]

I didn’t say it was more important. I just said that it’s clearly unfair for 2 to get an easier game in a knockout prelim than 1, which is what you would expect to happen with the current system.

No, I think 2 is marginally better. More important to have the easier game in a knockout final (prelim) than a second chance game (week 1).

Kudo for coming up with a 2 pool system, but I would say you could give 1st a better advantage very simply:

Week 1
1 v 3
2 v 4
(Other matches same as current format)

Then, if higher ranked sides win all their finals, you’d end up with a prelim of:
1 v 4
2 v 3

If my team finished 1st, I’d definitely rather have that format than the current one.

Dude your team never finished first and won 3x GF!

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Isnt the correct solution removing the pre finals bye not changing a long time effective system?

I'd say the sample to demonstrate a clear disadvantage is currently quite small anyway.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

2016 is less than useless as a data point for people arguing that the pre-finals bye disadvantages QF winners.

1. It was the first year of the system, so there was no prior history for clubs to draw on and plan for it, which is no longer the case
2. The Western had a 15-7 record heading into finals. Spent most of the season in the top 4 and would have finished there if not for injuries, which were somewhat rectified by finals. They ran into a declining Hawthorn side which lost five of their first six games of 2017 and then a GWS side playing in its second final, so it's not as though they ran over the top of two juggernaut top 4 teams
3. The other QF loser was the minor premiers, so for Sydney to win their prelim wasn't a great surprise, esp against a Geelong side which has lost half a dozen other prelim in the last 12 years

Never mind the fact that both QF winners rolled their prelim opponents in 2017.

If you look at the teams to win a PF after losing their QF or coming from an EF since the pre-finals bye came in it's:

• 2016: A The Western team which underachieved in the H&A season
• 2016: Sydney minor premier
• 2018: An admittedly average Collingwood side which only beat one top 8 side before finals and limped over GWS in the semi, but did go onto a much stronger top 4 finish in 2019 and also ran into a Richmond side which hit the end of the year in poor form
• 2019: An absolutely stacked GWS team which rolled Collingwood during the regular season and only finished two spots below them on the ladder anyway
• 2020: A Geelong side which has only lost six times to Brisbane since 2004 and finally landed a prelim opponent with an even worse finals record than them
• 2020: The dynasty Richmond side

None of the QF winners who didn't make the GF, with the exception of Richmond in 2018 if you ignore their form slump, were teams which anyone would have considered 'locks' to win their prelim. They've all gone on to lower ladder finishes the following year, too.

The whole '1 game in 28 days' thing certainly didn't stop Adelaide and WCE from hammering their prelim opponents in 2017 or 2018, or stop the Dees from hammering The Western last year.

 

[Sky]

Rather a 34 week season but that’s because I know my team would finish first almost every single year

even though we would be playing 12 games at KP & annually hosting the five big Victorian teams at the G.

 

[RichLeMonde]

in a competition where the fixture can help determine ladder position, it’s only appropriate that we don’t massively favour teams that finish slightly higher than others.

Yeah that is actually a v good point

 

[GoldbergsGold]

I like the SANFL finals structure the most, it gives the minor premier the best chance to make the Grand final. Minor premiership atm is meaningless, it's basically the same as second place.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Why do people see having an extra week off for the QF winner to now be a disadvantage - is it a fitness/conditioning thing? If so, surely they'd be able to replicate that through a practice match/match simulation on the weekend off?

Yes, listening to player interviews, some players struggle to get back to their best, after they rest.

 

[LordLucifer]

The pre-finals bye was Gilligan's idea.

Gilligan has gone, so should his stupid idea.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The pre-finals bye was Gilligan's idea.

Gilligan has gone, so should his stupid idea.

Should go the NFL way- bye before the GF, especially with the concussion protocols in place

 

[My_Username]

The pre-finals bye was Gilligan's idea.

Gilligan has gone, so should his stupid idea.

That was a reaction to clubs resting players in the lead up to finals.